It looks like the political world no longer needs to debate who’s writing next week’s report on the administration’s war policy and conditions in Iraq. ThinkProgress noticed this Washington Times piece that highlighted a minor detail: there is no report.
A senior military officer said there will be no written presentation to the president on security and stability in Iraq. “There is no report. It is an assessment provided by them by testimony,” the officer said.
The only hard copy will be Gen. Petraeus’ opening statement to Congress, scheduled for Monday, along with any charts he will use in explaining the results of the troop surge in Baghdad over the past several months.
So, on the one hand we have reports and data from the National Intelligence Estimate, the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Embassy, and the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, all of which point to very little security progress and no political progress in Iraq. On the other hand, we’ll have Petraeus’ opening statement to Congress.
And this is the moment the political world has been waiting for?
All this time, the problem was apparently grammatical. “Report” isn’t just a noun; it’s also a verb. Petraeus isn’t going to deliver a report to Congress; he’s simply going to report to Congress.
All of this is just so odd, I wonder if the Washington Times, which isn’t exactly known for high journliastic standards, somehow got this wrong. A month ago, Tony Snow told reporters, “Now, let us keep in mind that the full burden of this report does not fall on his shoulders. A lot of the key judgments, especially about politics, will fall on Ambassador Crocker. So this is — although I know a lot of people talk about ‘the Petraeus report,’ in fact, you have a report that is a joint report by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.”
In three sentences, Snow referenced a “report” (the noun) four times. And now there isn’t going to be any such document?
This is all just too bizarre. For a couple of months, the White House has responded to every question about conditions in Iraq the same way: let’s wait until September and see the report from Petraeus and Crocker. Given their credibility, the argument goes, the document they provide to lawmakers should carry enormous weight. And on the other side of the aisle, critics of the administration have wondered how best to respond to a predictable report, written by Bush allies who have given skeptics reason to worry about their objectivity.
The LAT reported a few weeks ago that this scenario was all wrong.
Despite Bush’s repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.
And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report’s data.
This touched off quite a few questions about the report’s authorship. Petraeus insisted he’d write his own report.
Gen. David Petraeus, who is scheduled to brief Congress in two weeks on the progress in Iraq, assured lawmakers this week that the administration is not involved in the writing of his report, according to a lawmaker who has recently returned from the region.
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.), told reporters Thursday that Petraeus said he and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had briefed the administration on the situation in Iraq, but added that “as far as [Petraeus] is concerned … he is writing his recommendations of that report and testimony.”
Notice how the report and testimony were considered separate things? Now, all of a sudden, they’re not. The testimony is the report.
I’m completely lost.